Talk:160th Rifle Division (1940 formation)

Hatnote
You reverted my edit where I converted some badly-formatted hatnote-like text into text in the lead of the article and left me an explanatory note User talk:Shhhnotsoloud – thank you. However, the current arrangement cannot continue to exist. A WP:HATNOTE must be properly formatted, and since "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for" a hatnote must have a valid link to another article. Is the different 1941 formation covered in any article? If it is, then a properly-formatted hatnote (for example using about) could be used. If there is no other article (yet) then the thing to do is mention it in the article. I wouldn't characterise what I did as "burying" but there may be other ways to alert the reader: perhaps as a sentence immediately after the lead sentence? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. The 1941 formation will be my next article after this. As I mentioned, I'm happy to reformat this as appropriate, but it seems to me that the purpose of a hatnote as you quote above is exactly what is needed here. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for your work generally. I'll leave the hatnote properly-formatted but with a redlink, on the basis that the redlink won't exist for long. Happy writing, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've created an WP:SIA at 160th Rifle Division. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks great. Thanks for your help. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)